Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGC Pharmaceuticals


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although cleanup appears to be needed, there are enough unchallenged sources brought forth as substantive and reliable that it appears the GNG notability criteria is met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

MGC Pharmaceuticals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence of notability. Highly promotional article by paid editor, unwisely accepted from AfC. I am beginning to get the feeling we will need to use the same skepticism about notability claims for bitcoin companies, and apply it to enterprises in medical and recreational cannabis.  DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article defintiely has promo issues but these can be addressed through editing for quality. In terms of notability it meets the standards required by WP:ORG based on the following references: 1 2 3. The West Australian, Evening Standard, and Financial Review are all WP:NEWSORGs, the coverage extends over years, WP:AUD is met since these are national/regional sources. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete if those really are the three best sources. The West Australian article is very obviously a re-hashed press release - not independent, does not contribute towards notability. The Evening Standard one is also dubious - a bit of background, followed by some puffy quotes from their managing director, including some of their handy hints on choosing the right product, and information about pricing and where to buy - this looks to me like an paid article of some sort, rather than a genuinely independent piece of journalism; also worth noting that the Evening Standard is a free sheet, with no consensus as to reliability per WP:Perennial sources. I can't access the Financial Review article, but I note that it's written by a 'contributor' - this suggests a form of WP:UGC, as described at Perennial sources under 'Forbes.com contributors', which would not be useful in establishing notability. I'd be looking for better sources than this to be satisfied that NCORP is met; happy to reconsider my vote if better sources are identified. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) "Obviously a re-hashed press release" - OK, where's the press release? 2) So Evening Standard is reliable then, being a WP:NEWSORG, 3) "Contributor", otherwise known as a free-lancer, but is still a pass for WP:NEWSORG. Forbes is unreliable because of its lack of a proper editorial policy and essentially being a self-publishing platform - obviously not true of Financial Review.
 * PS - "if those really are the three best sources...". Honestly, you're supposed to confirm that for yourself, that's the whole point of WP:BEFORE. If you weren't satisfied with those three sources then you should have dug further and looked to see whether there were more there: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Notably this includes negative coverage which cannot simply be fobbed off as PR hype - really, I sometimes think that negative coverage of Corps is the only kind of coverage that won't simply get dismissed as PR at AFD. FOARP (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Look at the wording of the article - two sentences of background, followed by a bunch of statement from the company. They haven't got an opinion from an independent expert, there's no information you wouldn't expect to see in a press release, it's all 'Management said...', 'MSG said...', 'Managing Director Roby Zomer said...'. It's all exactly what you would expect to find in a press release, and nothing else. 2) There are different standards of NEWSORG - some of them are explicitly depracated. This one has no consensus on reliability, which is different from saying that it is reliable, so I would use it with caution, remembering that it's a free sheet that relies entirely on advertising revenue and advertorials for its income. In this particular article, they're literally telling you where you can buy the stuff, how much it costs, and allowing the MD to tell you all about the product and even give tips about choosing the right one for you. Again - no commentary or analysis from independent experts. It looks like a paid piece to me, or the sort of article they'd agree to run if you simultaneously bought a chunk of advertising. 3) I am not familiar enough with the Financial Review to know whether their editorial policy with regards to contributors is any better or worse than Forbes's - I can't see anything on RSN about it. I also can't access the source, so I offer no opinion on that source and would appreciate others' views on it.
 * WP:BEFORE gives instructions for things you should do before nominating an article for deletion - I am certain that DGG did a BEFORE prior to doing that. When I said 'the best three sources', I meant in a WP:THREE sort of way - when paid editors pack out articles about their clients with numerous junk sources, it's sometimes more efficient to identify and discuss the best ones rather than forcing everyone to wade through all of them individually before expressing an opinion. If there are better sources in there, which you think establish notability, I will take a look, and will happily change my vote if I'm convinced. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think all 12 (the three original ones plus the eight additional ones) are relevant, being instances of significant coverage in reliable sources indicating notability of the subject as required by WP:ORG, WP:AUD etc. WP:BEFORE is the process the nominator has to go through, but is also up to !voters to satisfy themselves that it was done. We should not simply !vote "delete" because something was nominated for deletion saying "It's up to them to do the WP:BEFORE, not me". FOARP (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's not what I did. I reviewed the three that you highlighted, assuming them to be the best ones, and found that two of them were not independent, and one I couldn't access but I wasn't sure of the reliability. I also had a look to see if anything better jumped out at me, but I'm not going to trawl through every single trash source a paid editor adds to an article when an administrator has already done the BEFORE. I am however prepared to review any sources that an editor in good standing and without a COI, such as yourself, believes contribute towards notability, so I'll look at the other ones you've put forward later today and see if they sway my opinion. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  12:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - I agree that it is simply not worth looking at sources that are clearly PR of one kind or another. I skipped over every GNews hit that I didn't recognise as an RS. This is clearly a company which has engaged in aggressive PR and SEO (hence the negative stories are all after the tenth page of GNews results) so there's a lot of rubbish online about them. All the same there are also instances of what appears to be Sigcov in RS sufficient, in my view, to sustain notability, though of course intelligent people can differ on this. FOARP (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the sources that you linked. I can't access a couple of them (the Financial Times and the Australian), and a couple of them are still a bit 'press releasey' (e.g. ITNews), but I'm coming round to the view that there is enough coverage there. Can you confirm that the FT and Australian are giving the company significant coverage in their articles? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  06:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I now can't access that FT article either, but from memory the part covering MGC was two paras and included a precis of the company. The Australian article is no longer accessible for me either, but was a multi-para story entirely about the conflict between Ross Smith and the board of MGC. FOARP (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. In light of the fact that there are apparently sources out there, which I can't access, and which may demonstrate notability. I can't quite get myself over the line to vote keep based on the ones I'm able to access, so I'm on the fence for now. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Completely non-notable promo article. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT Large mix of references, including explanations of what they're selling, what markets they're going, distribution details into which indicates WP:ROUTINE coverage and promotion.  Even posting they're supply agreement, which is really beyond the pale. I wondered where they're putting all the ref's. It's plain native advertising.   scope_creep Talk  18:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the references discussed above? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FOARP (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be most useful if somebody could specifically look at the sources presented and evaluate each one. If you do that, and summarize your findings in a nice neat table, whoever closes this in a week from now will thank you.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. As WP:LISTED indicates, there are many references that meet WP:SIGCOV and thus demonstrate the notability of the publicly traded company. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per UnitedStatesian.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.